Hyosung (America), Inc. et al v. Hantle USA, Inc.
Filing
175
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 174 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Request to Modify Case Management Schedule filed by Hantle USA, Inc., Nautilus Hyosung Inc., Myung Won Suh, Nautilus Hyosung America, Inc., Won Gee Lee, Genmega, Inc.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/18/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ADAM A. LEWIS (CA SBN 88736)
(alewis@mofo.com)
GRANT L. KIM (Cal. Bar No. 114989)
(gkim@mofo.com)
ALISON M. TUCHER (Cal. Bar No. 171363)
(atucher@mofo.com)
BARBARA N. BARATH (Cal. Bar No. 268146)
(bbarath@mofo.com)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA, INC. and
NAUTILUS HYOSUNG INC.
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
OAKLAND DIVISION
13
14
15
NAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA, INC. and
NAUTILUS HYOSUNG INC.,
Plaintiffs,
16
17
18
19
20
Case No.
CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV)
STIPULATED REQUEST TO
MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT
SCHEDULE AND ORDER
v.
Local Rule 7-1(b)
HANTLE, INC. (fka Hantle USA, Inc.),
GENMEGA, INC. (fka Huin, Inc.),
WON GEE LEE, and MYUNG WON SUH,
Judge: Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong
Defendants.
21
22
WHEREAS, the Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the fact discovery
23
cut-off date until May 18, 2012 and to make related adjustments to other dates, given that the
24
parties have been discussing settlement and agreed to defer discovery so as to avoid incurring
25
litigation costs that would be unnecessary if the case is settled (Dkt. 173);
26
27
WHEREAS, the parties have exchanged several drafts of settlement agreements and
believe that they will be able to sign a final settlement agreement within the next several weeks;
28
STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV)
sf-3145365
1
1
2
3
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to continue to defer discovery so as to avoid
incurring litigation costs that would be unnecessary if the case is settled;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the discovery cut-off and expert disclosure dates
4
should be vacated, so they will not need to engage in discovery while finalizing the settlement;
5
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that it is premature to set new dates now since this
6
depends on future developments, and there will be no need to set new dates if the settlement is
7
finalized;
8
WHEREAS, the following extensions have been requested and granted in this case:
9
The parties filed a stipulated request to extend the time to file a stipulation or motion
10
regarding the filing of the Second Amended Complaint by one week (Dkt. 49), which
11
was granted by the Court (Dkt. 52);
12
The parties filed a stipulated request to extend the time for Defendants Won Gee Lee
13
and Myung Won Suh to answer the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 67); after
14
Myung Won Suh filed his Answer at the stipulated time, the parties filed a further
15
stipulated request to extend the time for Won Gee Lee to file his answer (Dkt. 76),
16
which the Court granted (Dkt. 77);
17
Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking a five day extension to submit a joint
18
letter brief concerning whether the Answer of Defendant Won Gee Lee should remain
19
under seal in view of the Court’s Order granting in part and denying in part
20
Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order (Dkt. 107), which the Court granted (Dkt.
21
108);
22
23
24
(Dkt. 168), which this Court granted on March 26, 2012 (Dkt. 173)
25
26
27
Plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the Case Management Schedule on March 20, 2012
The Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to extend the deadline for conducting
the ENE Session (Dkt. 74, 87); and
The Court granted the parties’ three stipulated requests to extend the deadline for
amending pleadings (Dkt. 137, 139, 142).
28
STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV)
sf-3145365
2
1
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between the
2
parties, pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b) and subject to the Court’s approval, that the cut-off dates
3
for fact and expert discovery and for expert disclosures are vacated. Within four weeks of the
4
date that this Stipulation is approved by the Court, the parties shall either file a stipulated request
5
to terminate this action in view of a final settlement agreement among them, or shall submit a
6
Joint Status Report advising the Court on proposed adjustments to the case management schedule.
7
In addition to stipulating to the above, I, Grant L. Kim, attest that concurrence in the filing
8
of this Stipulation has been obtained from Matthew H. Poppe, Counsel for Defendants Hantle,
9
Inc., Won Gee Lee, and Myung Won Suh, and from Michael Li-Ming Wong, Counsel for
10
Defendant Genmega, Inc.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Dated: May 17, 2012
ADAM A. LEWIS
GRANT L. KIM
ALISON M. TUCHER
BARBARA N. BARATH
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By:
/s/ Grant L. Kim
Grant L. Kim
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NAUTILUS HYOSUNG, INC.
NAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA,
INC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV)
sf-3145365
3
1
Dated: May 17, 2012
2
MICHAEL LI-MING WONG
THAD A. DAVIS
ROCKY C. TSAI
ROPES & GRAY LLP
3
4
By: /s/ Rocky C. Tsai [as authorized]
Rocky C. Tsai
5
Attorneys for Defendant
GENMEGA, INC.
6
Dated: May 17, 2012
7
8
9
10
MATTHEW H. POPPE
KRISTIN S. CORNUELLE
SARAH C. MARRIOTT
JACOB A. SNOW
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
LLP
By:
/s/ Sarah C. Marriott_[as authorized]
Sarah C. Marriott
11
Attorneys for Defendants
HANTLE, INC. [fka Hantle USA, Inc.]
WON GEE LEE
MYUNG WON SUH
12
13
14
Order
15
16
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated:5/18/12
By:_______________________
U.S. District Court Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. CV-10-2160-SBA (NJV)
sf-3145365
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?